The Composer As Facilitator Composition
The Composer As Facilitator Composition
The Composer As Facilitator Composition
and/as Process Symposium
29‐30 June 2013
University of Huddersfield
Alexis Porfiriadis
Bath Spa University
Proposal for a 30 minute presentation
[10 minutes of speaking, 10 minutes of performance of the verbal score One minute is
more than one minute (2011/12) and 10 minutes of questions.]
Proposal title:
The composer as facilitator. Composition as an invitation for improvisation and
collective processes by the performers.
This paper will examine scores which present processes that constitute the composition
and prerequisite or cause the formation of temporary or permanent collectivities.
Formation of collectivity before or/and during the performance can be traced as
common element in compositions such as Burdocks (Christian Wolff, 1971), Sonic
Meditations (Pauline Oliveros, 1971), One minute is more than one minute (Porfiriadis,
2011/12). In Burdocks and in One minute is more than one minute, the musicians must
decide about the macrostructure and the microstructure of their performance all
together (Wolff, Porfiriadis). In the case of a large number of performers, the ensemble
may also decide by choosing representatives (Wolff) or by working in smaller groups
(Porfiriadis). In Sonic Meditations, Oliveros states that her verbal score is intended for
groups whose performers work together for a long time and meet regularly. In all three
cases, composition is synonymous with the process. In Wolff’s piece the performer is
invited to be in constant and direct contact with her fellow players (through cueing
techniques). In Oliveros’s piece s/he is invited to act in an esoteric way (through
techniques of meditation) maintaining contact with her fellow players and the
environment while in my score the performers are invited to create collectively a
1
specific structure with the material given. Two of the compositions (Oliveiros’s and
mine) make use of verbal notation, while Wolff’s composition in addition to verbal
notation makes use of graphic notation as well as elements of conventional notation.
The musical and social implications of such practices will be explored through the
analysis of these three pieces, while the performance of my score will hopefully trigger a
conversation on the meaning of composition as a process.
This is the Section IV from Burdocks by American composer Christian Wolff. It describes
a simple procedure which is part of an experimental composition with an
indeterminable result. Indeed, in this section, the process is the composition. There is
nothing that the players have to “learn” or memorize. Just to decide for their sounds and
follow the process described by the composer. The sonic result of this process is the
actual composition.
Any number of persons sit in a circle facing the center. Illuminate the space with
dim blue light. Begin by simply observing your own breathing. Always be an
observer. Gradually observe your breathing become audible. Then gradually
introduce your own voice. Color your breathing very softly at first with sound. Let
the intensity increase very slowly as you observe it. Continue as long as possible
and until all others are quiet. Variation: Translate voice to an instrument.
This is Meditation No.1 from Sonic Meditations by American composer Pauline
Oliveros; a verbal score describing an introvert process which gradually turns extrovert
resulting to an experimental composition with an indeterminable character. In this case
also, the process is the composition. The performers need not to prepare something,
2
neither memorize anything, simply to enter a procedure of meditation, act internally
before allowing their voice or instrument to be heard.
Both compositions are incorporated in so called “experimental music”. A
widespread practice within this context is that the simple (or sometimes more complex)
process described with verbal or graphic scores becomes the composition. Instead of
following a procedure with the use of musical symbols which the players interpret the
best way they can resulting to a closed form, experimental music composers as Cage,
Wolff and many after them, create an environment in which the players, or as David
Tudor called them, the “creative accomplices” realize their performance. Thus, from the
“composer genius” the wishes of whom the players must succumb to, we pass to the
composer/facilitator who simply shapes the environment in which the performers can
act with creativity.
The tools these composers/facilitators use to create their compositions are open
form, verbal and graphic notation and the performance of compositions which integrate
objects or digital sonic sources beyond traditional musical instruments. Moreover, their
scores often invite for improvisation; in other words, the players are offered the
opportunity to make spontaneous decisions on various sonic or structural parameters.
A significant characteristic of both these compositions is that they call the
players to work collectively and create their own performance. In Burdocks, Wolff uses
a combination of conventional, verbal and graphic notation which leads to various levels
of improvisation. As he puts it: “the piece is for one or more orchestras; any number of
players; any instruments or sound sources”. In other words, it offers freedom in the
choice of instruments, timbre and the number of performers. With the term “orchestras”
Wolff means ensembles of different sizes. Burdocks consists of ten sections which as he
says, “not all of which need be played in any one performance”, an instruction leaving
the macrostructure of the interpretation in the player’s hands. The composer
determines the minimum number of players for each section and invites them to “gather
and decide, or choose one or more representatives to decide, what sections will be
played and in what arrangement.” In addition, they must also decide how many players
will make up an orchestra for a section; how many orchestras will play a given section;
which orchestra will play which section and when (in what sequences, overlapping or
simultaneous combinations).
This invitation for teamwork and the use of graphic and verbal notation and
improvisation was a conscious and, in a way, a political decision for Wolff. Conscious
because usually his scores were performed by himself and the people present who
3
probably lacked exceptional soloist skills (apart from David Tudor and Frederik
Rzewski) or who were not at all musicians. Political, because as he states: “the
techniques of coordination, interaction and interdependency, all players being equal
(really, the normal thing in chamber music), and the sharing out of musical
independence between composer and performers – that can have a metaphorical or
exemplary force: social democracy.” This doesn’t mean that by writing music everything
should convey a political message. Something like this, as Wolff says “could be a musical
disaster, and so also a political one.” It’s just that Wolff would like all the parameters of a
musical composition that someone uses for its creation, for example, the manner the
performance is prepared, its actual presentation, the method of working with the
players and the composition’s interaction with the audience, to all take place with a
conscious awareness “of good democratic principles.”
Ιn Sonic Meditations (1971/89), Oliveros asks for groups to work over a long period
of time and hold regular meetings. This naturally means that the people involved in such an
activity would probably develop a kind of collective. Oliveros uses the word meditation
“rather than concentration, in a secular sense to mean steady attention and steady
awareness […] for continuous or cyclic periods of time.” (Miles 2008, 7) The composer’s
words were not chosen randomly: attention connotes activity and awareness “connotes
receptivity more than activity.” (Ibid., 7) Thus, Oliveros does not conceive musical
meditation as an introvert‐only process irrelevant to the external environment and the rest
of the people. On the contrary, she believes that our mental health is dependent on our
relationship with our environment (Ibid., 8‐9) Hence, pieces in Sonic Meditations like Νr.XVI
or Zina’s Circle undoubtedly lead to the creation of some form of collectivity between
participants.
The objective of my compositional practice is to create compositions for
improvisers with verbal and graphic notations which encourage collective behaviours
between performers. My verbal composition One minute is more than one minute (2012)
is a work for an ensemble of at least five persons; it gives the players the opportunity to
select from pre‐existing material and realize, as a group, a composition which is
indeterminate as far as its performance is concerned. According to the instructions for
the performance of the score, the duration of the piece can fluctuate between one
minute minimum to 60 minutes maximum. The members of the ensemble perform one
action per minute. The exact structure of the piece (order of actions and their respective
timings) is to be decided collectively before the performance. The resultant realization
should be the product of a conversation between the performers and by no means
4
decided by one single person. In the case of a big ensemble (more than 15 people) or an
orchestra, the musicians should first decide all together the total duration of the piece.
Then, they must form smaller groups and decide individually what they are going to play
during its total duration. The groups don’t have to know what the other groups are
going to play. The actions of One minute is more than one minute can be combined in any
manner, so that one action can continue while another one begins and more than one
actions can be performed simultaneously etc.
The 60 actions described in this verbal score all explore the production of sound.
The fundamental sonic material to be produced is described with the following: “pitch‐
note / noise / sound‐percussive sound / chord‐cluster / melody / instrumental burble”’
as well as with actions and playing techniques as “scream / glissando / tremolo /
recitation / scratching”. The durations, dynamics and the “arrangement” are described
by “(very) short/ continuous/ (very) loud / quiet / played by 1‐2‐3‐4‐5 persons / played
by all the members of the ensemble”. The sonic features and the manner of their
execution within the space are described with instructions as: furious/ aggressive/
scattered in the room/ person should distance oneself from the other members of the
ensemble.
The first performance took place in Athens by four students of the School of
Music Studies of the University of Thessaloniki and one student of the School of English
Language and Literature of the same university. In contrast to the cases of Wolff and
Oliveros, in One minute is more than one minute, the procedure which is the composition
is not given ready to the players, beforehand. They must take the step of collective work
and make collective decisions so as to create the performance process.
According to the information I received by interviewing the players after the
performance, but also from everything I saw as a silent observer in some of the
rehearsals, the process that the players followed to prepare the performance of the
piece was the following: initially, they agreed upon the total duration of the concert
(they played 3 different compositions written by me in the same concert) and on this
basis, they decided that the execution of One minute will last 20 minutes. Then, each one
chose the actions they liked the most and begun building the structure of the piece
based on these. This procedure was developed minute by minute with all members of
the group trying to match, in relation to their aesthetic, the actions they personally liked
with those of the other members. This procedure took place with the players having at
the same time in mind the necessity to create a specific macrostructure; in other words,
5
the team functioned on a dual level: to simultaneously create both a microstructure and
a macrostructure. As one of the members of the team says:
From the very start, each one of us had this double level in mind. This was the basis
of our actions. In other words, we didn’t do one thing separately from the other (he means
the microstructure and macrostructure), neither did we do one thing first and then explore
the other.
The macrostructure that the members created has five basic “pillars”. For these
important sections, the performers chose actions that are carried out by the entire
ensemble. At minutes between 0’ to 1’ and 1’ to 2’ the team played one action per
minute. These two actions were repeated just before the end of the performance at
minutes 17’ to 19’. At minute 6’ to 7’, that is, around the 1/3 of the entire structure, the
team chose again the action of minute 1’ to 2’. In the middle of the structure, at minute 9’
to 10’ they agreed again on a group action. At minutes 11’ to 12’ and 12’ to 13’, in other
words, just after the middle of this version of the piece, the team chose to perform again
two group actions, similarly to the beginning and the end. In this manner, they set‐up
five basic pillars to support their macrostructure. One at the beginning, one at the 1/3 of
their version, one at the middle, one just after the middle and one exactly before the end.
Through discussions with the members of the team, they created this specific
score for performing their own version of One minute is more than one minute. It is,
actually, a full score in which each player can see at any given moment what the other
players are doing. As the members of the team noted, the creation of the score was
fundamental. According to the instructions, each player could perform only one action
per minute. Thus, when the action of the player didn’t last a whole minute, he had the
option to choose the moment to enter. As one member describes:
I was listening very carefully during the minute, especially when I had just a few
seconds of action and not the whole minute, to find the moment to enter […] I was
very conscious of the sonic level, being aware of what the others had to do since we
had a full score, so I could know at any given moment what each one of them is
doing. Thus, by realizing for example that during the duration of one given minute
we had a few actions which lasted only a few seconds, I would consider to enter just
a while after the rest so that the sonic density would not decrease significantly or
to join along and increase it.
6
At sections that demanded more than one player, the team decided that one of them
should give a signal. However, each member could enter at the specific action within a
time limit of 10 seconds. Thus, there was room for different reactions of each member of
the group.
Let us hear the first 3 minutes of the performance that took place at ΚΝΟΤ Gallery on 11
May 2013.
My hope and goal is that through such a procedure of preparing the performance of a
piece, I can provoke a kind of collectivity between the players. In the present paper, the
term ‘collectivity’ describes the cultivation of a kind of bond between participants, either
more permanent (as in the case of a group/collective) or temporal (as in an occasional
union of players in order to perform a score). This bond emphasizes building a team
spirit, juxtaposed with developing individuality in the members of a team. I use the word
“collectivity” and not “collaboration”, because the term ‘collaboration’ connotes a casual
co‐existence of creative forces as the case is in some of John Cage’s compositions.
On the contrary, pieces like Burdocks or Sonic Meditations which I
mentioned previously, along with my own verbal/graphic compositions invite
people to work together, discuss, disagree, negotiate and come up with commonly
accepted solutions in order to shape the final form of their performance. This
naturally creates bonds (although mostly temporary) between participants. They
get better acquainted with each other, acknowledge the abilities and limitations of
every individual and find themselves in the position to be obligated to combine their
knowledge, experience, aesthetic values and reach a collective result which will
satisfy all of them.
When I interviewed the players, they explained how the process of
preparing compositions like One minute influenced them. First off, due to the
collective effort, they formed a ‘company of friends’ having a common objective.
Even if the players already knew each other, as the case was in the performance of
my score, the procedure of structuring a performance with scores in which the
composer just offers the material and does not assume the role of an instructor
during rehearsals is a procedure that notably connects the individuals taking part.
A second important element, as one of the players describes, is that
...when it ends, we have a common point of reference. We have something that is
infinite. It will always be ours, even if you never do it again or not with the same
7
people. But you have done it and even if you don’t hang out with/ see these people
anymore, you can talk about it years later. So, clearly there is an effect: a common
ground.
Ultimately, this process promotes equality between participants, exactly as Wolff
wished. A similar procedure like the one followed in One minute
....eradicates the role of that guy who tries to play better than the rest and stand
out. Here it’s impossible and that’s a great thing. A soloist cannot exist […] In fact,
even if one of us tries to do something beyond the instructions to distinguish in a
way, he’ll look the worst in the end. In other words, he’ll kind of spoil it. So it’s very
convenient even in the level of a “company”, since no one wants to top the other: it
can’t be done since it’s not there as a concept.
I believe that something more than a mere “collaboration” between players is
achieved through the process which is required to organize the performances of Burdocks,
Sonic Meditations or one of my verbal/graphic scores. Apart from “collaboration”, I aim to
promote collectivity between those participating. Personal strategy is replaced by team
planning and team decisions. My instructions always stress that the decisions for the
execution must be collective and by no means whatsoever taken by only one person. I want
the preparation and performance procedures to always take place with the conscious
knowledge “of good democratic principles”, as Wolff says.
8